Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:03:34 UTC No. 16276961

And just to be perfectly clear. I believe in evolution, but even a kindergartner could have come up with it if he'd seen enough fossils. It's poorly justified to the point that creationism is allowed to be taught alongside it in 'murica.
Science is science because it makes quantifiable predictions and when you are asked to make predictions you whip out SFM and come up with shit like this
>https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-americamovil-mx-revc&sca_esv=00b049f269a9e1e0&q=how+humans+will+look+in+the+future&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0CbCVgAZ5mWEJDg6aoPVcBgWizR0-0aFOH11Sb5tlNhd3zC4y7ZXTSrvvSBSNjw8fVX3G3tS3bGsqQeBBxb6Hy8F9HGOE0RWCexVH-n2lfOipWc3_4I6wxy9yymdAUITSgrpEgx5amt-LX20es-YzyuhD3fZv7wgLhdOWjyW2lJeJmSUjTRt32I835gDCosYkjWrXCt87h5gV3HnDM39a4tpO-IgA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVh7DItZ6HAxVH6ckDHWXGAw0QtKgLegQICBAB&biw=360&bih=674&dpr=2

You are ridiculous

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:14:38 UTC No. 16276969

>>16276956
Ok schizo

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:15:24 UTC No. 16276970

>>16276969
Cope morphogenlet

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:35:18 UTC No. 16276984

>>16276956
majority of biologists are humanitiestards larping as STEM
thats why they're unable of rigorous reasoning requied for math/logic

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:40:51 UTC No. 16276990

>>16276956
>Biology is in shambles
anon, stop, you're in shambles.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:00:40 UTC No. 16277006

>>16276984
The sad thing is that they're often the most vocal part of STEM. Also chemists but they're okay if they do research.
>>16276990
I thought I was hiding it so well...

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:16:21 UTC No. 16277057

>>16276956
TOTAL BIO DEATH

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:22:59 UTC No. 16277061

evolution is not science it's a philosophy based world-view

🗑️ Barkon Approved Post at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:24:50 UTC No. 16277062

Biology is philosophy

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:30:41 UTC No. 16277066

>>16276956
>Biologist concludes the shroom is more complicated than the human solely because it has a longer genetic sequence
no? Go look at the c-value paradox and the discussion around it. Nobody beliefs that more DNA == more complex.
>Biologists don't even know how to solve lotka volterra analytically because they don't even understand how to make reasonable assumptions
Uh? Also, Lotka-Volterra models are old. Which are you referring to?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:34:11 UTC No. 16277071

>>16276956
>shroom
why does a shroom produce a complex molecule such as psilocybin that has no benefit to the shroom but a profound effect on human brain receptors

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:46:04 UTC No. 16277078

>16277061
notsureifserious.jpg

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:47:42 UTC No. 16277079

>>16277071
>that has no benefit to the shroom
Such surety!
Would you bet your life on that assertion?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:01:16 UTC No. 16277087

>>16277066
>c-value paradox
The problem is that there shouldn't even have been a paradox to begin with, complexity is not a feature of a large number of particles in a system, it's about the relationships between them.
>Nobody believes more DNA==more complex
Not right now, but people sure did earlier, and I'm not talking about 100 years ago, I'm talking about roughly 30-40 years ago.
>Lotka Volterra
I stand on principle, it doesn't matter if they're old and it doesn't really matter which one I'm talking about. The average biology grad student cannot solve a y'=ax+by , x'=cx+dy system even in limiting cases where y=y(x) explicitly nor can they intuit the equilibrium dynamics or even know how to apply the equation to gain insights for a system they're studying nor can they even solve a population growth equation that only has carrying capacity as a constraint.

Sure, you might be able to memorize the equilibrium conditions, but it's not very useful if, say, you're studying competitive dynamics between species to predict if one might go extinct and can't really stay there watching for 4+ years.
>inb4 competitive dynamics are varied and cannot be predicted faithfully by LV
Then you can't be bothered to make reasonable assumptions and my point still stands

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:09:12 UTC No. 16277098

>>16277061
>>16277062
No, if it was it wouldn't be called the "theory of evolution". Biologists really are that egotistical, arguably the "creation of form" book published way before Darwin's shit did a better job at justifying it, but tou don't see biologists ever talk about it.
>>16277071
Idk what that has to do with complexity, but I bet a biologist has already ran and justified the premise via natural selection by saying that it constitutes a symbiotic relationship where we cultivate shrooms because we like the high thus making it more likely for those kinds of shrooms to keep producing said molecule.
It's too silly, it's at best some happy coincidence and more likely than not, we are not the only animals affected by psilocybin so it works as a deterrent.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:32:42 UTC No. 16277115

>>16277087
>Not right now
Then let it go, dummy. Kek

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:41:47 UTC No. 16277120

>>16276961
Biology is embarrassing. Imagine publishing a theory like this.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:06:56 UTC No. 16277140

>>16277087
>The problem is that there shouldn't even have been a paradox to begin with, complexity is not a feature of a large number of particles in a system, it's about the relationships between them
It was something that was assumed back then beacuse of our limited knowledge on the matter, especially in terms of molecular biology. 80 years ago we weren't even sure if the genetic information was inscribed in proteins or DNA, or whether one gene coded for an entire protein or something else. It is easy to just say that they were dumb, they were literally pionieers.
>Not right now, but people sure did earlier, and I'm not talking about 100 years ago, I'm talking about roughly 30-40 years ago
See before
>Lotka Volterra
I agree on that, but consider that a wet-lab biologist would probably ask someone else to do the math. Also, Quantitative Biologist exists and also Modelists do [spoiler] it is one Master I am interested in [/spoiler]
>inb4 competitive dynamics are varied and cannot be predicted faithfully by LV
LV model for competition is just exponential growth - competition effect on abundance. It is just very simple, and I dunno how you can extrapolate the alpha/beta coefficents from data. But again there are professional figures for that.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:06:39 UTC No. 16277218

>>16277066
>Go look at the c-value paradox and the discussion around it. Nobody beliefs that more DNA == more complex.
>Paradox
>Nobody believes
Why do you think it's called a paradox dumb fuck? I think op is right. Your ilk seem incapable of simple reasoning.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:11:11 UTC No. 16277221

>>16277218
And just to be clear since I know you have some retarded ass pull about how views have changed, fair enough but the puzzle still exists and biologists are still confounded by it and provide ad hoc answers. Take their own word for it.
>in 2003 the term "C-value enigma" was endorsed in preference to "C-value paradox" at the Second Plant Genome Size Discussion Meeting and Workshop at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK,[8] and an increasing number of authors have begun adopting this term.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:50:14 UTC No. 16277252

>>16276956
>Biologist concludes the shroom is more complicated than the human solely because it has a longer genetic sequence
>Retard schizo heard something dumb from someone and believed is consensus.
Is like saying that because some schizo physicist believes in the perpetual motion machine then all physicists believe that it works.

>>16276984
This is kinda true. In my experience, Many people I met in biology were interested in the "humanitarian" side of it In the sense of social responsibility towards nature. Many disliked anything that was hard science or math heavy, feeling more persuaded by animals or plants on a practical level.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:05:17 UTC No. 16277261

>>16277221
>you have some retarded ass pull about how views have changed
I mean, c-value enigma/paradox isn't my field of expertise, but given how much as changed in terms of what we know today about molecular biology, I wouldn't find strange that once it was believed that "more DNA == more complex" and today this has changed. I don't understand what is so upsetting about it.
>in 2003 the term "C-value enigma" was endorsed in preference to "C-value paradox" at the Second Plant Genome Size Discussion Meeting and Workshop at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK,[8] and an increasing number of authors have begun adopting this term.
this just means that they have changed the name for it, I suppose in order to reflect that we don't really believe anymore than "more == complex". Again, not my field of expertise so I don't know, but really to die on this hill is dumb.
>>16277252
>his is kinda true. In my experience, Many people I met in biology were interested in the "humanitarian" side of it In the sense of social responsibility towards nature
biology is vast. As someone studying molecular biology, "hard science" is just everyday work.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:21:51 UTC No. 16277806

>>16276956
>Biologists don't even know how to solve lotka volterra analytically
what's the importance of this? because gene competition can be modelled according to this system of ODEs?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 23:25:52 UTC No. 16277986

>>16277140
>c-paradox
Bro, complexity was discovered way before genes, you'd think biologists would've thought to implement it to solve the paradox earlier, not in the 80s
>LV
The main point is that it's useful to know LV in ANY field of biology and very few fields do, and even when they do, they have ro ask for help from mathematicians or physicists.
>LV model for competition is just exponential growth
It's not, what the fuck are you ok about? The only exponential growth functions in biology are malthusian, which are rarely used. LV is literally the pilar on which ecology stands, you can make it as hard or as simple as you like, the point is that most biologists can't even process the simple case, let alone the hard one.
>>16277261
>molecular biology
Okay, so molecule taxonomy. Biologists are observers, you don't study things, you catalogue them based on gut feel and the "predictions" you make are entirely dependent on how you catalogue shit, which is circular reasoning.
>>16277806
Dear anon ANYTHING that has eat-be eaten-reproduce dynamics can be modeled by lotka volterra. Don't believe me? Look for models for the spread of FUCKING VITILIGO. You could even make a case that Turing morphogenesis is glorified lotka volterra.

And also. Who were the people who proposed the idea for introducing sterile mosquitoes to ward off Denge disease? PHYSICISTS. Why did Biologists opposed the idea?
>Hurr durr you're gonna make em go extinct
Ecologists don't know what fucking carrying capacity means. It's disgusting. Every time you get bitten by a mosquito I want you to remember: Biologists did this to you.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 00:27:04 UTC No. 16278060

>>16277986
>to solve the paradox earlier
there is nothing to solve if not our understanding of the relationship between genome lenght and biological complexity, if there is any. I fail to grasp what do you really mean
>The only exponential growth functions in biology are malthusian
I clarify my statement. Lotke Volterra has a exponential growth equation (dN/dt = rN) multiplied for a factor that make the population abundance stray from exponential growth, which take in consideration both if N is at carry capacity and the intensity of the competition by another population. I expressed myself in the wrong way, my bad
>The main point is that it's useful to know LV in ANY field of biology and very few fields do, and even when they do, they have ro ask for help from mathematicians or physicists
But it is studied, I mean I did. And again yes, the math guys do the math, that's their job
>Okay, so molecule taxonomy
I guess that's a way to put it if molecular biology was just expanding the GO terms catalogue.
>Biologists are observers, you don't study things, you catalogue them based on gut feel and the "predictions" you make are entirely dependent on how you catalogue shit, which is circular reasoning
uh?
Also I have no idea of you tangent about mosquitoes. I am sorry that you feel this way about biology

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 01:07:12 UTC No. 16278085

>>16277986
I wonder, can math shed a light on the theory of evolution? are there any math books or papers that agree with the theory of evolution as it is understood today, that guided mutations explain the existence of so many different species?

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 02:02:11 UTC No. 16278124

>>16278085
The book OP mentioned "creation of form" justifies taxonomical routes by proposing that bone structure between similar species and their ancestors can be deducted from non linear maps that preserve some characteristics and if those characteristics aren't preserved by the linear map you can make the case for a very ancient common ancestor that violated at least one of those. OP is based for making a case in favor of the morphogenesis approach, it's way more reasonable than darwinism.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 02:37:04 UTC No. 16278137

>>16276956
the field is messy. biologist's cant even agree on or formulate a rigorous definition of species. imagine if mathematicians couldn't even agree on what continuity means

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:26:31 UTC No. 16278178

>>16278137
I'd agree but it's not really a good comparison because mathematicians construct what they need from first principles and what's left is proving that definitions are equivalent (epsilon-delta vs topological continuity with the preimage stuffs, for example) while biologists are left with complexity in it's purest form and since they don't know math the best they can do is write novels, as passive observers making the occasional perturbation.

The issues lie in that they don't know math and they think that's all good when it's not, because knowing math trains you to know how to make just the right assumptions to get to the real meat of problems. You can't hope to understand life if you don't know physics, and that goes for all branches of biology.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:53:22 UTC No. 16278196

>>16278060
The point of OP is that there SHOULDN'T be math guys in biology. Like biology should be rigorous enough to not need them outside special cases.

>>16278178
This really gets at the problem. People think mathematical rigor is in proofs, but that's not the crux of mathematical rigor. Mathematical rigor is understanding your assumptions inside and out, how valid they are for the problem at hand, and the implications of those assumptions (which are effectively your temporary axioms for a problem). Mathematical maturity is knowing just the right number of assumptions to make for the problem at hand.

This is what is lacking in biology. They can discuss the draw backs and limitations of these solutions derived from game theory, differential equations, etc. but they don't realize those are trivial criticisms when they're effectively stated right up front in the assumptions made in order to apply the models.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 03:54:29 UTC No. 16278198

>>16276956
Imagine actually believing in Neo-Darwinism?!
LOL

Science Is Reconsidering Evolution

Science Is Reconsidering Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT0TP_Ng4gA

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 04:12:24 UTC No. 16278207

>>16276956
Is it has something to do with women dominating Biology field

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 04:21:25 UTC No. 16278210

>>16276956
The forms and function of life forms is for breathing and motion.
Life evolve with the idea the form of life must be optimal for breathing because breathing is part of metabolism in most creature the biggers source of energy.
The collagen fibers on life form create the form of living thing and collagen fibers specialize in several tissues as fascia, muscles, bones, joins, and physical forces model the growth of life you can seen the living forms as cohesion of collagen fibers for breath and motion.
Biologist are too incompetent to understand physics.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:20:11 UTC No. 16278397

>>16278207
Don't go there anon

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:28:34 UTC No. 16278461

>>16278137
> biologist's cant even agree on or formulate a rigorous definition of species
and we will never will. It works on some cases - you can definetly use it effectively for macroscopic beings - but it kinda falls apart with microrganisms and with some macrorganisms too, at a point that no matter the definition, it just doesn't work. At the end of the day is an attemp to describe the diversity of nature and nature doesn't give a fuck about it. We could argue that maybe it's outdated and a better "new taxonomy unit" should be defined, but for the moment what we have works in a general sense and there is no real reason to discard all past taxonomy work.
As >>16278178 said, we cannot work as mathematicians do. I also agree that making the right assumptions is paramount to resolving any problem, but really, what to you mean effectivly? What are the right assumptions that we biologist still fail to grasp? In what field?
>>16278196
I don't think we mean the same thing here. what I meant is that for some experiments, data is analysed by professionals, like staticians or bioinforamtics guys. But this doesn't mean that biologist don't do anything. I mean, Beadle and Tatum didn't go to a mathematician to develop their hypothesis. What do you mean with being rigorous? If you mean "make an assumption that it's always true and the develop a system around it" I can assure nature's response is that she doesn't give a flying fuck. The assumptions we made do work is some cases - see above - in others not so well.
In general I don't understand you guys. Really, what is the problem with biology? If rally we are retards that can just poke nature with a stick and describe what happens, feel free to show me the way to true knowldge or whatever.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:11:46 UTC No. 16278490

>>16278397
Why?

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:18:45 UTC No. 16278546

>>16277071
Man I'm nowhere near a biologist and even I can assert that this is a silly question because it's way too human centric.

How do you that this molecule was made for you? Chocolate is tasty to people but kills dogs and many other animals. Various plants are beneficial to livestock but humans can't process cellulose.

This effect is likely a deterrent for various other likely lifeforms who are more natural predators of the shroom to steer clear of, but humans adapted to mushrooms much later down the chain and it's effects on us came as a result of several complex chain interactions. At the same time, there's plenty of mushrooms that have deadly neurotic effects and will kill you, so you would argue they were made against humans?

Here's a great example of why modern biology and health that relates to it sucks :
Most mental and physical problems we have nowadays come from extremely poor understanding of gut microbiomes and how the medicine and diets we eat affects them. IBS is a poorly studied phenomenon, for example. Think about it the next time you pop an antibiotic.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:19:53 UTC No. 16278577

>>16278546
how does a mushroom produce a complex psychoactive molecule through random mutation and natural selection?

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:30:50 UTC No. 16278588

>>16278577
>randomess means no complexity
Throw 1000 dice and you end up with a complex 1000 digit sequence of numbers.
>inb4 t-that's not complex!!!1!!11
Then neither is psilocybin, it's just C12H17N2O4P. Less complex than aforementioned 1000 dice throws.
>b-but it's psychoactive, therefore it's complex!
No, it just means it happens to fit one of our many recepetors. Are random lego structures complex because they randomly happen to fit other random lego structures?

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:33:10 UTC No. 16278590

>>16278588
how many dice rolls would it take to get 100 times head in a row?
that's about the likelihood of this occurring by chance

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:48:03 UTC No. 16278607

>>16278590
>>16278590
>how many dice rolls would it take to get 100 times head in a row?
Anon, dice don't have heads. You're thinking of coins, silly billy. at least 100 heads in a row in 1000 throws? That's actually a rather tricky calculation, simulation returns probability of around 4.5%, so 22222,(2) tosses on average.

There are way, way more than 22k organic compounds on earth, so i suppose it's no surprise one of these happened to fit our 5-HT2A receptor.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:23:41 UTC No. 16280387

>>16277986
>And also. Who were the people who proposed the idea for introducing sterile mosquitoes to ward off Denge disease? PHYSICISTS. Why did Biologists opposed the idea?
>Hurr durr you're gonna make em go extinct
>Ecologists don't know what fucking carrying capacity means. It's disgusting. Every time you get bitten by a mosquito I want you to remember: Biologists did this to you.
There can be unintended consequences and interactions we don't fully understand.
For example, why doesn't HIV, Ebola, Rabies spread via mosquito?
Mosquitos might serve an important role in natural vaccination.

That being said, worst case scenario, Physicists will lead us into a cool cyberpunk dystopia instead of the gay dystopia we're currently in.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:49:35 UTC No. 16281387

>>16278607
100 heads in a row is an event that is 2^-100 chance of happening.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:04:10 UTC No. 16281398

Do women actually ruin biology?

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:19:21 UTC No. 16281410

>>16276984
My dad is a prof in the life sciences and he consistently tells me how his students can't do basic math. They barely learn calculus by the time they get to grad school. I don't fucking understand.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:51:25 UTC No. 16281429

>>16276956
>Alan Turing
>Ronald Fischer
>John Maynard Smith
>Kolmogorov
>Alfred Lotka
>Vito Volterrra
>Georgy Gause
>Nicholas Rashevsky
>J B S Haldane
>George Price

All the best "biologists" were basically mathematicians who did research on population genetics, evolutionary game theory, and quantitative ecology.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:43:34 UTC No. 16281552

>>16281398
In short, yes

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:51:08 UTC No. 16281557

>>16278590
Any specific sequence is equally likely to come up.
How likely is it to get HTTHHHTHTHTHHHHTTT... fucking retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:57:36 UTC No. 16281721

>>16281387
Why assume a fair coin or independent events?

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:59:21 UTC No. 16281724

>>16280387
>For example, why doesn't HIV, Ebola, Rabies spread via mosquito?
>Mosquitos might serve an important role in natural vaccination.
Yes goy, let the mosquitos bite you and give you West Nile and other diseases. They're saving you from HIV. Do you understand how unhinged you sound?

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:02:15 UTC No. 16281729

>>16276956
>I'm a physicist
Stopped reading right there

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:26:31 UTC No. 16281748

>>16276956
>they don't even understand how to make reasonable assumptions
They learn to memorize how to solve problems instead of reason their way through, so they don't understand that certain assumptions are being made in the solution.
>Biologists would rather believe there is such a thing as recessive genes instead of figuring out that it's way more likely that precisely because genes are used primarily as mediators between other genes that the recessive genes are performing communication functions.
So the same recessive gene is doing these communication functions while being expressed or while not being expressed?

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 01:33:24 UTC No. 16281859

>>16276956

> solve lotka volterra analytically

It’s a dynamical system, can be solved analytically in a few cases, and those cases don’t have a simple trig approximation either despite having oscillations. Not to mention ecologists shy away from interpreting it any more than an approximation due to the atto fox problem, a classic case of spherical cow style modeling

> quantifiable predictions

Ever heard of a little something called genetic drift? Y’know, you probably learned it in school cuz you’re so smart. It makes a whole lot of population modeling useless if extrapolated to the future. Now imagine if you tried to do that in the past. With fossil evidence. I’d like to see your “reasonable assumptions”.

> shroom moar complicated than hooman cuz moar DNA

What does “complicated” mean? Biologists don't use that term when comparing organisms unless it’s between a more rudimentary form and a more evolved complex version of said form, like photoreceptors vs eyes. Saying fungi are more complicated than humans is a stupid statement as it could easily be reversed without being false, how can it be false? They’re completely different except that they have eukaryotic cells but can’t photosynthesize.

> do some math

Math is useless unless there’s actual measurable experimental predictions that can be gained from it for biology. Biophysics and non-equilibrium thermo/stat mech give some rather good predictions, but it’s mostly for cells or biomolecules. Shit is wayyyy more complex for species populations, even for e.coli colonies present amidst other microbes with predation and what not. Try coming up with a good definition of the fitness of a gene without having it be very hacky and ad-hoc before using it as a variable to model, and try to make measurable predictions on population size that last more than a generation. You’ll quickly find this is a far more complex task

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 02:23:44 UTC No. 16281879

Another day of living rent free in the minds of (STEM – {BIOLOGY})'cels. The world would be better without us, that's why we have to keep publishing.

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 23:52:54 UTC No. 16283016

>Biologist concludes the shroom is more complicated than the human solely because it has a longer genetic sequence
perl golf - the art of reducing code to as few keystrokes as possible without reducing it's functionality
https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=437032

people used to care about this kind of thing when memory was more limited than it is today. wozniak was a real genius at it

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:16:38 UTC No. 16283578

>>16277120
You have a leaning towards literal interpretation and envision monkeys building a raft with stone axes and rope and of course don't believe it. Most people understand that the title describes a floating sea crossing, not impossible on wind-felled trees which would attract fish and could bring them ashore across the Atlantic in a rough but complete manner.
I can't quantify how much more likely that is compared to flying (picked up by birds and dropped) but it is. Aliens are out of the picture completely because of the even less likelihood.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:21:34 UTC No. 16283584

>>16276956
>Biologists would rather believe there is such a thing as recessive genes instead of figuring out that it's way more likely that precisely because genes are used primarily as mediators between other genes that the recessive genes are performing communication functions.
Care to explain it better?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:23:58 UTC No. 16283588

>>16276956
Pretty sure every great mind was a weirdo in some way, probably comes with the abstract thinking

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:27:05 UTC No. 16283591

>>16277071
Byproduct
If a set of random mutations is selected doesnt mean that all the mutations in the set have a high fitness score.
Just that the set as a whole has it.
Heck if you thin evolution as a maximization problem through exploratory search and randomized heuristics you are bound to have local optimums and sometimes going away from the local optimum through shitty solutions until you find the next local optimum.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:31:22 UTC No. 16283598

>>16278590
Reality probably have more computing power than your average cluster of computers.
You are basically asking why reality produces improbable events.
The precise movement of any particle in any specific direction is more unlikely but it just appens.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:57:16 UTC No. 16284634

>>16278085
Evolution "efficiency" seems to go by the power rule. In a study where their breeding bacteria for "efficiency" aka who grows fastest they found it's improvement could be maped out as sqr(x) if I'm not mistaken you can look up "Long-Term Experimental Evolution in Escherichia coli. XII. DNA Topology as a Key Target of Selection" if you want to look more into it. I mean their is occasional a Evolutionary breakthrough. But that's the exception to It I imagine. Like when the ecolli start breaking down non-sugar based molecules for carbon.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:10:23 UTC No. 16284699

>>16281387
That's assuming only 100 rolls.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:48:31 UTC No. 16284743

>>16276956
You sound dangerously retarded. Mostly only dangerous to yourself, though.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:51:11 UTC No. 16284745

>>16284743
You're retarded.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:11:36 UTC No. 16284771

>>16280387
>For example, why doesn't HIV, Ebola, Rabies spread via mosquito?

Because viruses are not real.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:47:59 UTC No. 16284800

>>16284634
Personally I think that evolution is 100% real, but not 100% random.
Living organisms must have evolved biological mechanisms to direct mutations into specific directions based on sensed data.
Of course to prove those mechanisms exists would be extremely hard.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:50:43 UTC No. 16284803

>>16284800
But at the end of the day, humans are trying dna manipulation. THAT in itself is an evolved mechanism to control mutations.
Why wouldnt be possible, for example, that birds dont have integrated mechanisms in their bodies that direct mutations given sensed, lets say, athmospheric pressure for example.
I think the answer lies there.
Mutations are not 100% random, speeding up the process.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:37:19 UTC No. 16285060

>>16284800
>>16284803
Is it possible that the processes guiding evolution optimized themselves over time and/or reached a stable point? A bit like the early periods of the universe when everything was chaotic and planets/stars weren't yet formed? Nowadays you don't witness creation of stars, planets because that time has sailed. Can we say the same for life?

Ofc randomness doesn't exist, it's only hidden variables. Biologists don't understand this.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:53:07 UTC No. 16285166

>>16285060
>Ofc randomness doesn't exist, it's only hidden variables. Biologists don't understand this.
Maybe...
Or maybe true randomness is the only thing that exists and stability and being is an illusion.
If you take an snapshot of steaming hot water and every particle is frozen in time, it will look like an stable solid structure.
8n a long enough timeline stars and planets go boom, and all lifeforms and complex structures return to chaotic information.
Seeing biological matter converging in any direction could be simply an illusion given our short conception of time in the great scheme of things.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:00:33 UTC No. 16285230

>>16276956
>I'm a physicist and was worried about specializing in out of equilibrium thermo until I found out that mathematical biology was a thing

How deep into out of equilibrium physics did you go, and to what extent is it applied to biology? Are you talking about Schwinger-Keldysh path integrals and so on, or just something like simple dynamical systems like the Lotka-Volterra model you mention?

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:01:15 UTC No. 16285231

Honest question. Are women responsible for biology field's downfall?

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:30:08 UTC No. 16285256

>>16285231
CRISPR was largely developed by two women. Your sexist bullshit smells too much.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:32:12 UTC No. 16285262

>>16285256
*By 2 men without inclusion and massive funding

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:09:22 UTC No. 16285329

>>16285231
That's a strange question. It's an exciting time to be a biologist right now with all the recent crystal structures of proteins that have come out on https://www.rcsb.org/ OP is just a schizo

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:44:12 UTC No. 16285743

>>16285230
Clearly OP learned some Lotka-Volterra, probably studied some simple models of transport processes, and then read Schrödinger’s quote (even though biologists expressed similar sentiments long ago and had already begun treating the body as such)

There’s a huge amount of dialogue between biologists and physicists in biophysics, and even studying simple individual cells can provide a wealth of interesting, extraordinary, and complex physical systems. Just describing the viscoelastic non-Newtonian behaviour of the cell components is in itself a huge task. To act like physicists have it all figured out is peak Dunning-Kruger

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:19:20 UTC No. 16286288

life itself

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:36:06 UTC No. 16286354

>>16276984
Is it any wonder you have people like Denis Noble arguing that evolution is purposeful instead of random. Very humanistic bias prevailing in biology.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:46:13 UTC No. 16286626

What proportion of biology is female does this correlate with anything?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:51:31 UTC No. 16286648

>>16286354
can you prove there is no direction or directing force in evolution and that it is all random? I don't think that seems rational given the evidence for simultaneus effects

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:46:34 UTC No. 16287011

How right was Harold Hillman?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 15:11:57 UTC No. 16287302

>>16286648
what is the purpose of aging?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 15:59:00 UTC No. 16287372

>>16287302
Within what context?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:00:14 UTC No. 16287376

>>16287372
any context lmao, you asked me prove, now show me the purpose of getting old

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:14:36 UTC No. 16287388

>>16287376
I don't see the connection.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:25:01 UTC No. 16287403

>>16287388
of course you don't because you have no worthy response

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:44:56 UTC No. 16287425

>>16278490
I have doped the biology departments drinking water with estrogen and have strategically placed skirts through the halls. I will have femboys, Batman!

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:19:36 UTC No. 16287462

>>16287376
The purpose of getting old? There is none. We torture ourselves simply for the heck of it. We can end this world and ourselves with a thought.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:17:01 UTC No. 16287696

>>16287403
No, that's meaningless
I do not have to demonstrate anything there are multiple possible purposes for aging. I see no reason to get into it.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:26:42 UTC No. 16287712

>>16287696
or you are just a tranny that is scared that their transition was useless because evolution has no purpose

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:25:43 UTC No. 16287825

>>16276956
>making shit up about biologists
kek, did a biologist cuck you, mate?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:36:21 UTC No. 16287832

shame

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:49:49 UTC No. 16287841

>>16276956
>Le ball goes down le ramp

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:55:09 UTC No. 16287846

>>16276956
(You)

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:14:49 UTC No. 16288868

>>16276956
>instead of figuring out that it's way more likely that precisely because genes are used primarily as mediators between other genes that the recessive genes are performing communication functions.
if you break a gene with a miscoding what happens if you get two copies?

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 14:32:22 UTC No. 16289608

>>16276956
Kino thread.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 08:43:59 UTC No. 16290638

>>16277120
its true tho
I was there with the monkeys

Cult of Passion at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 08:51:47 UTC No. 16290643

>>16276956
Ditto, same, noticed as well, doing everything I can, but the solution was deeper than this. Namely, all of Biology and Medicine is founded on Chemistry (Soulless Atomism).

I have done everything I can, all of my work, to unto this false-founding.

t.BioPhycist (BioMagmetics specifically)

Cult of Passion at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 08:53:58 UTC No. 16290645

>>16287825
I died internally so they could live for eternity.